Theft or not...
Discussion
La Liga said:
he crux of the matter is whether or not it's "honest". Honest according to a reasonable person.
Leaving £10 for a £500 suits is likely to be seen as dishonest.
Leaving £500 for a £500 suit is less likely to be seen as dishonest.
With the original example I learn to the side of it not being theft, just ignorant and impatient.
What if you left an IOU for £500?Leaving £10 for a £500 suits is likely to be seen as dishonest.
Leaving £500 for a £500 suit is less likely to be seen as dishonest.
With the original example I learn to the side of it not being theft, just ignorant and impatient.
Mk3Spitfire said:
LoonR1 said:
Because one is a minor typo, the other is a conscious decision to write something daft.
I'm sorry it's affected your life so much, I was just jesting. I should have said milk.Mk3Spitfire said:
There's a stated case for this somewhere, but I can't remember the details and I'm not in a position to look it up.
I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
I think this goes to genuine belief of consent by the owner. In the OP's example the 'customer' was specifically told by someone authorised to do so on behalf of the owner not to remove the goods from the premises without going through the sales process. He refused to do so and removed the goods without consent but left sufficient cash to cover the retail value of the goods removed. I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
To me that is dishonest but I think many people would believe that the shop hasn't lost anything and he hasn't gained anything so it doesn't satisfy the popular understanding of what theft is.
The shop may be able to argue that there are losses associated with stock being removed without being processed as a sale. I suppose it depends on one's experience of selling things.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
he crux of the matter is whether or not it's "honest". Honest according to a reasonable person.
Leaving £10 for a £500 suits is likely to be seen as dishonest.
Leaving £500 for a £500 suit is less likely to be seen as dishonest.
With the original example I learn to the side of it not being theft, just ignorant and impatient.
What if you left an IOU for £500?Leaving £10 for a £500 suits is likely to be seen as dishonest.
Leaving £500 for a £500 suit is less likely to be seen as dishonest.
With the original example I learn to the side of it not being theft, just ignorant and impatient.
Have you left and IOU and then failed to come back for 2 weeks when the shop makes a complaint and the police catch-up with you?
Or have you left one and gone home, collected the money, then are returning to the shop with the cash when the police catch you?
You may be best placed to consider what judgement you'd make given the direction from the below:
CPS website said:
The test for dishonesty
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is the leading authority on dishonesty. It sets out a two stage test to be applied whenever dishonesty has to be proved as an element of an offence.
If the answer to either of the following questions is 'no' a prosecution is bound to fail. The first element is objective; the second subjective:
1) According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?
2) If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?
In many cases it will be clear from the evidence itself that the first stage of the test is satisfied.
The court must be satisfied that the evidence is capable of providing a positive answer to both questions. There is, however, no need for a Ghosh-based direction, unless the defendant has raised the issue that he or she did not know that anybody would regard what he or she did as dishonest, in accordance with the first stage of the test. (See R v Price (R W) (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 409).
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is the leading authority on dishonesty. It sets out a two stage test to be applied whenever dishonesty has to be proved as an element of an offence.
If the answer to either of the following questions is 'no' a prosecution is bound to fail. The first element is objective; the second subjective:
1) According to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?
2) If it was dishonest by those standards, did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?
In many cases it will be clear from the evidence itself that the first stage of the test is satisfied.
The court must be satisfied that the evidence is capable of providing a positive answer to both questions. There is, however, no need for a Ghosh-based direction, unless the defendant has raised the issue that he or she did not know that anybody would regard what he or she did as dishonest, in accordance with the first stage of the test. (See R v Price (R W) (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 409).
Zeeky said:
I think this goes to genuine belief of consent by the owner. In the OP's example the 'customer' was specifically told by someone authorised to do so on behalf of the owner not to remove the goods from the premises without going through the sales process. He refused to do so and removed the goods without consent but left sufficient cash to cover the retail value of the goods removed.
To me that is dishonest but I think many people would believe that the shop hasn't lost anything and he hasn't gained anything so it doesn't satisfy the popular understanding of what theft is.
The shop may be able to argue that there are losses associated with stock being removed without being processed as a sale. I suppose it depends on one's experience of selling things.
I think you ought to revisit the meaning of 'dishonest'. In the OP circumstances, leaving sufficient money to cover the goods but openly refusing to wait for them to be scanned may be uncooperative, but it is not dishonest. It is not untrustworthy, deceitful or insincere in any way. To me that is dishonest but I think many people would believe that the shop hasn't lost anything and he hasn't gained anything so it doesn't satisfy the popular understanding of what theft is.
The shop may be able to argue that there are losses associated with stock being removed without being processed as a sale. I suppose it depends on one's experience of selling things.
If the retailer suffers losses through his uncooperative behaviour then they might try to recover them civilly. Good luck with that.
Crikey, do people really think the law is there to criminalise people who don't follow a supermarket's arbitrary rules?
tenpenceshort said:
I think you ought to revisit the meaning of 'dishonest'. In the OP circumstances, leaving sufficient money to cover the goods but openly refusing to wait for them to be scanned may be uncooperative, but it is not dishonest. It is not untrustworthy, deceitful or insincere in any way.
But you cannot know that until the items taken are known and scanned to ascertain if the money is sufficient.A reasonable person would queue and pay. In fact, I would consider someone who didn't was seeking to take goods without full payment.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 12th July 19:11
PurpleMoonlight said:
But you can only assume there is no dishonesty by the leaving of sufficient money. You cannot know that until the items taken are known and scanned to ascertain if the money is sufficient.
A reasonable person would queue and pay. In fact, I would consider someone who didn't was seeking to take goods without full payment.
Yet if they had left sufficient money they wouldn't have been dishonest. A reasonable person would queue and pay. In fact, I would consider someone who didn't was seeking to take goods without full payment.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 12th July 19:09
PurpleMoonlight said:
tenpenceshort said:
Yet if they had left sufficient money they wouldn't have been dishonest.
It's reasonable to assume it's theft until proved otherwise.You might default to disbelieving people until the prove otherwise. Fortunately the law here works in the opposite direction.
tenpenceshort said:
If I told you the M1 was shut and you didn't believe me until you got there and found it really was, would I have been dishonest in telling you?
You might default to disbelieving people until the prove otherwise. Fortunately the law here works in the opposite direction.
Apples and pears.You might default to disbelieving people until the prove otherwise. Fortunately the law here works in the opposite direction.
If you were a retailer would you be satisfied with customers filling their basket and just leaving money on the counter without any knowledge of what they had taken?
tenpenceshort said:
...I think you ought to revisit the meaning of 'dishonest'. In the OP circumstances, leaving sufficient money to cover the goods but openly refusing to wait for them to be scanned may be uncooperative, but it is not dishonest. It is not untrustworthy, deceitful or insincere in any way.
That is your opinion. It may be popular opinion but it isn't mine. In these circumstances there is sufficient detriment to the owner of the goods for it to be dishonest. In my opinion. You are correct to point out that the mere fact that consent has not been given isn't dishonest but it doesn't follow that it cannot be dishonest because he left some cash behind. No amount of opinion can state the law on this point because it is simply a matter of opinion.
PurpleMoonlight said:
tenpenceshort said:
If I told you the M1 was shut and you didn't believe me until you got there and found it really was, would I have been dishonest in telling you?
You might default to disbelieving people until the prove otherwise. Fortunately the law here works in the opposite direction.
Apples and pears.You might default to disbelieving people until the prove otherwise. Fortunately the law here works in the opposite direction.
If you were a retailer would you be satisfied with customers filling their basket and just leaving money on the counter without any knowledge of what they had taken?
Obviously the HC also need to revisit the definition of dishonest as according to at least one person here it is a matter of looking the definition up in the dictionary.
gcollins said:
How i see this is the store only want to scan items for their benefit. How often do you go to a small newsagent and have a paper or a bar of chocolate scanned.....not often.
more and more small retailers have full EPOS systems ... -stock control
-shrinkage control (especially if they employ others )
-technology is the default / no more expensive than ordinary till if buying new.
Mk3Spitfire said:
^^ I have arrested people well into their 70's for shoplifting before, who have had more money in their bank accounts than I'm likely to see in a lifetime. Age and income/available money mean nothing ultimately.
Do you not agree that the majority of shoplifting is committed by people who need to sell the items they steal to fund a drug habit. People who don't have a pot to p1ss in. Is so, if charged, the fact that you can rule yourself out of that demographic is a legitimate part of your defense. I never said it was proof you weren't guilty, only that it lessens the chances of you being guilty.
That's dangerous thinking Twig. Statistically the chances of either of two people, one poor and one rich being guilty of shoplifting is small.
If one in a thousand people shoplift and 90% of them are poor, statistically there is a 0.09% chance of the poor person being guilty and 0.01% of the rich person being guilty. The 0.08% difference is negligible. It is the facts that are important. or at least they should be.
If one in a thousand people shoplift and 90% of them are poor, statistically there is a 0.09% chance of the poor person being guilty and 0.01% of the rich person being guilty. The 0.08% difference is negligible. It is the facts that are important. or at least they should be.
Zeeky said:
That's dangerous thinking Twig. Statistically the chances of either of two people, one poor and one rich being guilty of shoplifting is small.
If one in a thousand people shoplift and 90% of them are poor, statistically there is a 0.09% chance of the poor person being guilty and 0.01% of the rich person being guilty. The 0.08% difference is negligible. It is the facts that are important. or at least they should be.
If 90% of shoplifters are poor and 10% aren't, then on any given day if half a dozen shop lifting cases come before a magistrate, the chances are they will all be poor. Every couple of days you may have a case where someone isn't. If one in a thousand people shoplift and 90% of them are poor, statistically there is a 0.09% chance of the poor person being guilty and 0.01% of the rich person being guilty. The 0.08% difference is negligible. It is the facts that are important. or at least they should be.
Also factor in that none of the druggie shoplifters will have paid for any of the goods they stole.
Therefore, the fact that you had the means to pay and had indeed paid for part of your shop must surely be a legitimate part of your defense case. It sets you aside from 90% of cases the magistrate sees. I cannot see why people are getting so upset at this suggestion.
The fact that you can afford to pay goes to motive. You have one less reason to steal. That isn't particularly helpful when deciding guilt if there are other reasons but it is, as you say, relevant.
The problem is your use of statistics. The statistical chance of anyone being a shoplifter is tiny. The fact that 90% of shoplifters are poor means that the chances of being both poor and a shoplifter is 90% of a tiny chance. Which is less than a tiny chance.
How does knowing that one tiny chance is 10 times greater than another tiny chance help? A one in ten thousand chance and a nine in ten thousand chance are much the same thing when you need to be 90% sure of something being true.
Unlike some contributors my ego isn't invested in an internet forum. I don't recall ever having been upset by it.
The problem is your use of statistics. The statistical chance of anyone being a shoplifter is tiny. The fact that 90% of shoplifters are poor means that the chances of being both poor and a shoplifter is 90% of a tiny chance. Which is less than a tiny chance.
How does knowing that one tiny chance is 10 times greater than another tiny chance help? A one in ten thousand chance and a nine in ten thousand chance are much the same thing when you need to be 90% sure of something being true.
Unlike some contributors my ego isn't invested in an internet forum. I don't recall ever having been upset by it.
Zeeky said:
The fact that you can afford to pay goes to motive. You have one less reason to steal. That isn't particularly helpful when deciding guilt if there are other reasons but it is, as you say, relevant.
The problem is your use of statistics. The statistical chance of anyone being a shoplifter is tiny. The fact that 90% of shoplifters are poor means that the chances of being both poor and a shoplifter is 90% of a tiny chance. Which is less than a tiny chance.
How does knowing that one tiny chance is 10 times greater than another tiny chance help? A one in ten thousand chance and a nine in ten thousand chance are much the same thing when you need to be 90% sure of something being true.
Your using statistics to discuss the general population at large. But you should be applying them to people accused of shoplifting. That's what we're discussing.The problem is your use of statistics. The statistical chance of anyone being a shoplifter is tiny. The fact that 90% of shoplifters are poor means that the chances of being both poor and a shoplifter is 90% of a tiny chance. Which is less than a tiny chance.
How does knowing that one tiny chance is 10 times greater than another tiny chance help? A one in ten thousand chance and a nine in ten thousand chance are much the same thing when you need to be 90% sure of something being true.
What percentage of people caught shoplifting are genuine shoplifters, and what percentage are people not thinking when they left the shop and making an innocent mistake. And does the fact that one is a drug addict and the other someone with no financial reason to shoplift effect the likelihood of guilt?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff